IS-IS Minimum Remaining Lifetime
draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-04

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC
Document Type RFC Internet-Draft (isis WG)
Authors Les Ginsberg  , Paul Wells  , Bruno Decraene  , Tony Przygienda  , Hannes Gredler 
Last updated 2016-10-19 (latest revision 2016-08-17)
Replaces draft-ginsberg-isis-remaining-lifetime
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Christian Hopps
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2016-05-25)
IESG IESG state RFC 7987 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Alia Atlas
Send notices to "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
IANA action state No IANA Actions
RFC Editor RFC Editor state AUTH48-DONE
Details
Networking Working Group                                     L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft                                                  P. Wells
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: February 18, 2017                                   B. Decraene
                                                                  Orange
                                                           T. Przygienda
                                                                 Juniper
                                                              H. Gredler
                                                     Private Contributer
                                                         August 17, 2016

                    IS-IS Minimum Remaining Lifetime
               draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-04.txt

Abstract

   Corruption of the Remainining Lifetime Field in a Link State PDU can
   go undetected.  In certain scenarios this may cause or exacerbate
   flooding storms.  It is also a possible denial of service attack
   vector.  This document defines a backwards compatible solution to
   this problem.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 18, 2017.

Ginsberg, et al.        Expires February 18, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           isis-remaining-lifetime             August 2016

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Inconsistent Values for MaxAge  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Reporting Corrupted Lifetime  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Impact of Delayed LSP Purging . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Informational References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Problem Statement

   [ISO10589] defines the format of a Link State PDU (LSP) which
   includes a Remaining Lifetime field.  This field is set by the
   originator based on local configuration and then decremented by all
   systems once the entry is stored in their Link State PDU Database
   (LSPDB) consistent with the passing of time.  This allows all
   Intermediate Systems (ISs) to age out the LSP at approximately the
   same time.

   Each LSP also has a checksum field to allow receiving systems to
   detect errors which may have occurred during transmission.  [ISO
   10589] mandates that the checksum is calculated by the originator of
   the LSP and cannot be modified by other routers.  Therefore the
   Remaining Lifetime is deliberately excluded from the checksum
   calculation.  In cases where cryptographic authentication is included

Ginsberg, et al.        Expires February 18, 2017               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           isis-remaining-lifetime             August 2016
Show full document text